ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Dentinal tubule penetration of a bioceramic sealer after different irrigant and activation regimens: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Proper sealer adaptation relies on effective smear layer removal and adequate irrigant penetration. Intratubular entry of sealers is influenced by both the irrigant used and the method of activation. Nevertheless, evidence regarding the impact of newer chelators and activation strategies on bioceramic sealer penetration remains limited. Aim: This study aimed to assess and compare how various irrigating solutions and activation techniques influence the extent to which a bioceramic sealer penetrates the dentinal tubules, as observed through confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Materials and Methods: Sixty-three single-rooted teeth were prepared to F3 and randomly assigned to three activation groups ( Statistical Analysis: Data were examined with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test at a significance level of Results: Diode laser activation demonstrated significantly greater sealer penetration than sonic and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) techniques ( Conclusion: Both irrigant type and activation method significantly influenced bioceramic sealer penetration. Diode laser activation was the most effective, while EDTA remained superior to HEDP and chitosan according to this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.